UNITED NATIONS — The U.N. General Assembly urged Israel and the Palestinians Thursday to investigate alleged war crimes during last winter's conflict in Gaza and raised the possibility of Security Council action if they don't.

The 192-member world body approved an Arab-drafted resolution by a vote of 114-18, with 44 abstentions and 16 countries not voting.

Supporters insisted there must be accountability — especially from Israel — for the alleged violations of international law during the Gaza conflict in which 13 Israelis and almost 1,400 Palestinians were killed, including many civilians.

Israel rejected the resolution as "deeply flawed, one-sided and prejudiced" while the United States called it "unbalanced and biased" and warned that it will hurt prospects for achieving Mideast peace. Others voting "no" included Australia, Canada, Germany, Italy, Panama and a number of other European and Pacific island states.

Riyad Mansour, the Palestinian U.N. observer called it "an important night in the history of the General Assembly and the history of fighting against impunity and seeking accountability."

The resolution "endorses" a report by an expert panel chaired by South African Judge Richard Goldstone which concluded that both Israel and Palestinian militants committed war crimes and possible crimes against humanity during the Gaza war.

The report concluded that Israel used disproportionate force, deliberately targeting civilians, using Palestinians as human shields, and destroying civilian infrastructure during the incursion to root out Palestinian rocket squads targeting southern Israel.

It accused Palestinian armed groups of deliberately targeting civilians and trying to spread terror through its rocket attacks on southern Israel. Hamas, the main rival to the Palestinian Authority which Mansour represents, controls Gaza and most armed groups in the territory.

Many Western nations that voted against the resolution or abstained said they did not endorse all the recommendations in the 575-page Goldstone report, and opposed the possibility of Security Council action.

The resolution urges Israel and "the Palestinian side" to conduct "independent, credible" investigations within three months.

It asks Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to report to the General Assembly, within three months, on implementation by both sides "with a view to considering further action, if necessary, by the relevant United Nations organs and bodies, including the Security Council."

Unlike Security Council resolutions, General Assembly resolutions are not legally binding but they do reflect the views of the broader U.N. membership.

Mansour said the Palestinians will return to the General Assembly in three months to consider the secretary-general's report "with a view for further action."

He said at the start of the assembly's two-day debate on Wednesday that the Palestinians will pursue justice for Palestinian victims in the Security Council and at the International Criminal Court, the world's permanent war crimes tribunal.

"We started the journey today ... and we will continue this process until we make sure that the Israeli criminals who have committed war crimes against the Palestinian civilians face justice and get the punishment they deserve," Mansour said.

The resolution also calls on Switzerland to reconvene a meeting of the parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention, which spells out the obligations of an occupying power, and Mansour said the Palestinians will start preparing for this.

Before the vote, Israel's deputy U.N. ambassador Daniel Carmon demanded to know who would conduct a Palestinian investigation — the Palestinian Authority "that was ousted from Gaza in a violent coup" or "the Hamas terrorist organization ... which rejects the recognition of Israel."

Egypt's U.N. Ambassador Maged Abdelaziz, who introduced the resolution, replied that "the Palestinian Authority itself declared that they are going to conduct their own investigation" and Hamas has "already expressed the willingness to cooperate and to investigate and to prosecute those that are going to be responsible for these crimes."

Abdelaziz then asked Carmon if Israel will conduct a similar independent investigation, adding: "I think that this will be very happy news to the General Assembly."

Carmon replied that "Israel has been conducting professional, credible and thorough investigations as part of its standard operating procedures, and irrespective of any U.N. report" and went on to denounce the resolution.

"It disregards Israel's inherent right to defend its citizens in the face of ongoing terrorist attacks," he said. "It represents yet another pretext to bash Israel at the U.N. and is detrimental to any positive diplomatic engagement in the region."

U.S. deputy ambassador Alejandro Wolff told the assembly that "the United States strongly supports accountability for human rights and humanitarian law violations in relation to the Gaza conflict" and will continue to call for all parties to pursue credible domestic investigations.

But he strongly criticized the Goldstone report for "its unbalanced focus on Israel" and its "failure to assign appropriate responsibility to Hamas for its decision to base itself and its operations in heavily civilian-populated urban areas." He reiterated that the U.S. believes the report should remain in the Geneva-based Human Rights Council, which commissioned it.

The General Assembly action came two days after the U.S. House of Representatives passed a nonbinding resolution by a vote of 344-36 condemning the Goldstone report as "irredeemably biased and unworthy of further consideration or legitimacy." Goldstone sent the House Foreign Affairs Committee a 16-point rebuttal of what he said were incorrect or unfair readings of his report in the resolution.

But instead of trying to do that, they engage in the most hyperbolic discourse about the badness of Zionism, the badness of Jewish Israelis, the rightness and primacy of not just a Palestinian narrative, but the most strident traditional Palestinian narrative, and the most tendentious Palestinian narrative, the one that places lame for the conflict entirely on the side of the Israelis, that casts Israel as the usurper and what they call in one-state circles now the "temporary racist usurping entity." These are the ones, by the way, who won't talk about my book. There's a refusal to acknowledge or read my book. I've nicknamed my book "the temporary racist usurping book."

Ibish over praten met Hamas:

Now with regard to Hamas, I definitely don't think it would be wise for the West to open up dialogue with Hamas under the present circumstances. I think that would simply reward them and it would benefit them in their competition with the PLO and there's a stark choice that Palestinians are facing between two strategies: an Islamist violent strategy and a secular nationalist negotiation strategy. I think it's very important to bolster the second and to make the first appear what it actually is: Non-functional.

Hussein Ibish, a senior fellow at the American Task Force on Palestine, which is the leading American group advocating for an independent Palestine alongside Israel, has a new book out, "What's Wrong With the One-State Agenda?" which does a comprehensive job of demolishing the arguments made by those who think that Israel should be eliminated and replaced by a single state of Jews and Palestinians. He has performed an important service with this book by noting one overwhelming truth about this debate: Virtually no one in Israel wants a single-state between the river and the sea. It's useful to remember this salient fact when listening to the ostensibly reality-based arguments of the one-staters.

I spoke to Ibish about his arguments last week, shortly after he spoke at the J Street conference. Here is an edited version of our conversation:

Jeffrey Goldberg: What were your impressions of the conference?

Hussein Ibish: It was impressive as a first step. My impression is that there's still quite a bit of message-cohesion and message-formulation to be done. It seemed to me to be an insufficiently coherent group of people. The range of people was so large.

JG: You mean on the Zionist spectrum?

HI: I mean people ranging from the sort of centrist-center left, all the way to post-Zionists, anti-Zionists, who were there, too. It's not ultimately a group that's going to form, I think, a functional coalition. Right now, they're finding their feet. This is normal, it's inevitable -- but at a certain point, I think they have to clarify what they are, who their constituency is, what they stand for, who they are, who they're not. They've been more successful in creating a space for themselves as a new voice that is compelling, but at other moments it's looked like where they were simply positioning themselves as the alternative to AIPAC. And my sense of things is that, initially, that they would look too much to their rivals. But sooner rather than later, they're going to have to just move on and start to define themselves in a much more coherent and pro-active way, not just in contrast to the traditional Jewish organizations but also to distinguish themselves from people in the Jewish community whose criticism of Israel makes them anathema to the mainstream of the community. They can't go there and I think they've tried not to go there.

JG: You can't be Zionist and non-Zionist at the same time, in other words.

HI: Exactly. I think it's essential for them. For us, it's not important.

JG: Well, isn't it important to have a pro-Israel, pro-two-state organization in Washington that's credibly Jewish?

HI: It is. But I believe that all of the mainstream organizations are moving in that direction. I think begrudgingly, without enthusiasm, I think they're all getting there, because I think ultimately the only organization that I can think of that is absolutely opposed to a two-state agreement are on the far right, the Zionist Organization of America, which is in favor of the occupation without reservations and, on the left, Jewish Voices for Peace, which is a one-state group all the way and without reservation. It seems to me everybody else occupies some space in the middle without being one-staters and without being flag-waving pro-settlers.

Now, the question is, from our point of view, what's really important is that the Jewish community have a range of dynamic organizations that are effective in advocating for peace based on two states, number one. And number two, that we can work with everybody who is in favor of a two-state solution without any other preconditions. I mean, we don't want to get involved in intra-Jewish rivalries. We want to work with everyone who wants peace based on two states. It's as simple as that. We don't have a huge stake in where J Street ultimately positions itself, but I will say this: The more mainstream it can become, the more powerful and important it will be. I think they should be as mainstream as possible, they should avoid the impression they sometimes give that they're perhaps not being sensitive to fears about Israel's security. There's a real appetite for a more robust, more aggressively pro-peace organization in the Jewish community. But from our perspective, the only people we don't want to talk to are the one-staters and the pro-occupation groups.

JG: But the one-staters are a very marginal group. I think one of the interesting things you do in your book is show very coolly, calmly, the essential ridiculousness of one-state advocacy based on the simple fact that in order to have a successful one-state plan, you need Israeli Jews to want it, and today, not even one percent of Israeli Jews want it.

HI: You could put all of them in a small auditorium.

JG: I don't think you need an auditorium. Talk about these guys, the Tony Judts --

HI: I don't want to be too hard on Judt. Judt put out this argument and then he immediately admitted that it was utopian, that it wasn't serious and he was just doing a thought experiment. And since then, he basically has more or less withdrawn from the conversation Judt has not been a person who suggests that this is a realistic plan and a serious proposal for the future.

There are two fundamental flaws with pro-Palestinian strategic thinking that focuses on the idea of abandoning two states and going for a single state. The first is the question of feasibility, and it's hard to argue with that. Obviously anyone who is familiar with this sees the difficulty, and I would be the first to say that success is not assured by any means. Even a two-state agreement looks, at the moment, like something of a long shot. The difference between the two-state solution and everything else is that yes, it's a long shot, but it would work. And if we could conceivably get it, if we did get it, it would solve the conflict.

The fundamental argument that the one-staters seem to be making, which is that we can't possibly get Israel to end the occupation and relinquish their control of the 22 percent of Palestine (the West Bank and Gaza) but we will inevitably succeed in getting them to relinquish one hundred percent of the territory under their control. This is a problem of logic. The second thing is that once you've realized this, obviously what you've done is set yourself the task of convincing Jewish Israelis to voluntarily do this. The idea of coercing the Israelis into this through military force is absurd, and it could only really be done through voluntary persuasion. What the one-staters argue, actually, is that they don't have to do that. What they're going to do, they say, is bring the Israelis to their knees.

JG: South Africa style?

HI: Well, South Africa style, except we don't have a South Africa equation here.

JG: But they believe they do.

HI: They believe that through the application of what they call BDS - Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions - globally that they can crush the will of the Israelis and break the Zionist movement. To me, even if you believe that boycotts were plausible, which I don't, certainly I don't think the American government and institutions and corporations would participate.

JG: You have to move from the American consensus that supports supplying Israel with the best weaponry to not just a military cutoff but a complete cutoff and boycott. It's very hard to picture.

HI: Anyone who thinks that is plausible in the foreseeable future doesn't understand the nature of the American relationship with Israel. The commitment of the U.S., not just the government but American society, is to the survival and security of the Israeli state. And then there's another aspect, which is the extent to which Israeli institutions, organizations and corporations are interwoven at a very fundamental level with many of those in the U.S.

JG: Right, Intel and Google --

HI: I'm talking about corporate, governmental, intelligence, military, industrial, scientific ties. The point is that you can only take talk of boycott and sanctions seriously if you really don't understand any of this. And if you don't understand any of this, then you're living in a fantasy world. So here's the thing: Obviously the only real task for one-staters is to convince Jewish Israelis to agree to their solution. But instead of trying to do that, they engage in the most hyperbolic discourse about the badness of Zionism, the badness of Jewish Israelis, the rightness and primacy of not just a Palestinian narrative, but the most strident traditional Palestinian narrative, and the most tendentious Palestinian narrative, the one that places lame for the conflict entirely on the side of the Israelis, that casts Israel as the usurper and what they call in one-state circles now the "temporary racist usurping entity." These are the ones, by the way, who won't talk about my book. There's a refusal to acknowledge or read my book. I've nicknamed my book "the temporary racist usurping book."

These people are trapped in the language of the Fifties and Sixties. You're talking about a worldview is anachronistic in the most fundamental sense. It doesn't recognize any of the changes that have taken place since then. For example, the strategic situation that's emerged in the Middle East, where the Arab states and the Arabs generally have a lot of other things to worry about other than Israel. This is a world in which a lot of Gulf states are extremely concerned about Iraq, and where there are Arab states -- Jordan and Egypt -- that have treaties with Israel, where Syria has a motive to be civil with Israel that is unpleasant but completely stable, and where it's a very different environment than simply the Arabs and Israelis are enemies. The other thing that they've missed completely, and this is sort of the amazing thing, is the total transformation in American official policy toward the Palestinians over the past 20 years. Twenty-one years ago, there was no contact ever between the U.S. and the PLO. No contact, zero, and no Palestinian statehood is the consensus American foreign policy and it is a national security priority under Obama. People in the House, key positions like the chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Howard Berman, chair of the Subcommittee on the Middle East, Gary Ackerman, Nita Lowey on Appropriations - all of them Jewish American members of Congress, stalwart supporters of Israel, and all of them committed to peace based on two states. And all of them, by the way, who were on the host committee of the American Task Force on Palestine gala last week.

JG: You've reached the Promised Land.

HI: Except that we haven't achieved the results.

JG: Yes, there's that. But you're on the road.

HI: Exactly. The transformation in American attitudes is almost mind-boggling, an official American attitude on ending the occupation, which has been the traditional goal of the Palestinians. And at this very moment, a group of Palestinians turns around and says, 'Sorry, not good enough, we want it all. Not only is a single Palestinian state not achievable, it's not desirable, it's not acceptable, it's not enough, we want it all.'

JG: And you think they're succumbing to fantastic dreams. This is the traditional criticism of Palestinian politics over the past sixty years, that it's very hard to separate out the dreams from--HI: It goes back further than sixty years. It's an article of Palestinian nationalist faith that is almost one hundred years old, which is that demography is destiny, demography is power. This notion that if we just sit here, on the land, have children, are steadfast and don't agree to anything, then political power ultimately will flow to us. In the twenties, they believed if we do that, then, just by virtue of our presence in the land, our numbers, our demography, Israel will never be established. After Israel was established, it was just, "Well if we're steadfast and we don't agree, then Israel will be reversed." Then it was, "Well if we just do this, then independence will come in the occupied territories." Now the latest version is if we're just steadfast, we can create a South Africa-like model and we will reverse the war of 1948 at the ballot.

JG: But I have to tell you that for people like me, this is a real worry. This goes with the argument that the settlements are the vanguard of one-statism.

HI: Now there is some truth to this. I think it's useful for people like (Ehud) Olmert or people like yourself to point out that with the occupation going the way it is, there won't be a Palestinian state, and then Israel will be in a situation where it is neither meaningfully Jewish nor meaningfully democratic. I think you could claim that already, if you talk about the de facto Israeli state rather than Israel in its normally perceived borders, that is already the case and it will be increasingly so. Now here's the thing: The alternative, though, is not going to be a single state in the foreseeable future. It's possible we could get there, but it won't be a solution, it will be an outcome. There's a big difference. An outcome of a horrible, brutal, bloody civil conflict that drags on for generations, because even though this demographic issue and the legitimacy issues are crises for Israel, I don't think they result in the dissolution of the Israeli state

JG: In other words, most Israeli Jews would rather have a Jewish state than a democratic state.

HI: Yes, it's obvious. And I think that what you would get is a protracted civil war that is essentially an intensification of the civil war we've had. So I do say the single state is a potential eventuality, but it would be the outcome of a horrible scenario. Look, the idea that if the current round of talks breaks down and Obama gives up and the U.S. gives up and we all give up, then the alternative is a Gandhian non-violent struggle of sanctions and boycotts that will somehow bring Israel to its knees, that is not the way it's going to go. We know the way it's going to go.

JG: Each intifada is more violent than the last.

HI: And more religious. You'll end up with two sets of bearded fanatics on both sides fighting over holy places and God. It will be a complete disaster. And I think the Israelis will end up ultimately dealing with forces not only beyond its borders, but beyond its comprehension in the long run. This has the possibility of turning into not an ethno-national war but a religious war between the Muslims and the Jews over the holy places with the whole concept of Palestine gone and the Jewish population of Israel in a very unenviable situation, protected in the end only by its nuclear weapons. It's a nightmare.

JG: So you have three scenarios. One, the one-state solution: Somehow the Jews and the Arabs decide, even though their narratives completely contradict each other, that we'll be like Belgium, where we don't have to really like each other but we'll be fine. The second alternative is the one you described of basically endless war. The third is the two-state solution. But, sorry to say it, we don't seem that close right now. You have an Israeli government who seems extremely hesitant to pull down any settlements, you have a Hamas government in Gaza, just for starters.

HI: What you do with Hamas, in my view, is you make the situation such that Hamas has to choose, and you do this by creating progress and by creating momentum - and there are two ways of creating momentum. One is diplomatically, which right now, seems difficult. The other is through the Fayyad plan, which is state building in the occupied territories. That would have a very powerful effect. It is extremely important that we use that idea as a means of gaining momentum, that the Israelis do not block it, that the U.S. protect it politically, and that the Arabs, Europeans and the Israelis support it technically and financially. This is a way of really moving forward in a manner that is complimentary and not contradictory to the diplomatic process, and I think people who suggest that this is some kind of capitulation or some kind of collaboration are dead wrong. This is a very powerful way of effectively resisting the occupation without doing anything violent. Israelis may fool themselves into thinking that this is just economic peace, but it's not; it's Palestinians preparing for independence.

Now with regard to Hamas, I definitely don't think it would be wise for the West to open up dialogue with Hamas under the present circumstances. I think that would simply reward them and it would benefit them in their competition with the PLO and there's a stark choice that Palestinians are facing between two strategies: an Islamist violent strategy and a secular nationalist negotiation strategy. I think it's very important to bolster the second and to make the first appear what it actually is: Non-functional.

Abbas said the Palestinians were optimistic over what appeared to be US President Barack Obama's efforts to hold Israel accountable, but were ultimately left disappointed.

His announcement came days after the PLO was left stunned when US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton praised as unprecedented Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's offer to limit temporary construction in West Bank settlements to 3,000 additional housing units.

Bethlehem - Ma'an - President Mahmoud Abbas announced in Ramallah on Thursday that he would not be seeking a second term.

Confirming rumors about his impending retirement, Abbas said the decision came amid Israel's intransigence on settlements and the international community's indifference.

"I have informed the Fatah Central Committee and the Palestine Liberation Organization's Executive Committee that I will not seek a second term during the upcoming elections," he said in a televised address. "I hope they understand my position."

Abbas said the Palestinians were optimistic over what appeared to be US President Barack Obama's efforts to hold Israel accountable, but were ultimately left disappointed.

His announcement came days after the PLO was left stunned when US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton praised as unprecedented Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's offer to limit temporary construction in West Bank settlements to 3,000 additional housing units.

The continued expansion of Israeli settlements could force Palestinians to abandon the notion of a state in the West Bank and Gaza, chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said a day before Abbas' remarks. It may be time for Abbas to "tell his people the truth, that with the continuation of settlement activities, the two-state solution is no longer an option," he said.

Israel has refused to comply with previous obligations to dismantle settlements on Palestinian land in the occupied West Bank, and rejected calls from its close ally the US for a temporary freeze as a step toward relaunching peace negotiations.

Palestinians should "refocus their attention on the one-state solution where Muslims, Christians and Jews can live as equals," Erekat said. "It is very serious. This is the moment of truth for us."

donderdag 5 november 2009

"Our research on the ground has shown that after these incidents a total of 120 people have died in tunnel collapses," Samir Zaqout, Field Work Coordinator for the Al-Mezan Center for Human Rights in Gaza, told The Media Line. "Another seven were killed inside tunnels as a result of Israeli aerial attacks."

Of the 120 deaths, four were children and 59 were killed since the beginning of 2009. A further 250 people have been injured while working in the smuggling tunnels over the last few years.

"No one cares about what happens in the tunnels," Zaquot said. "The government here in Gaza just wants to make money off the tunnel owners and that's it. They take money from the people but do not provide any services to them. They don't care about the conditions for the workers, whether or not it's safe or the quality of the goods coming in from Egypt."

If they're digging illegal tunnels anyway, the government has a responsibility to protect them…

This is the latest word from a Gazan rights group, which is demanding that the Hamas government take steps to protect workers digging smuggling tunnels under the border between Egypt and the Hamas-controlled Palestinian enclave.

The call comes after another two men died while working in the tunnels, one from an electric shock and another from suffocation, after a tunnel collapsed on him.

Mohammed Baraka, 23, was killed by an electric shock while working in a tunnel Sunday afternoon. Earlier that day, Ahmed Salah Abdeen, 35, suffocated to death inside a tunnel that collapsed under the As-Salam neighborhood of the Palestinian town of Rafah. Another worker sustained serious injuries in the incident and later that day, in a third incident, two additional workers were hospitalized after paint thinner leaked inside a tunnel they were working in.

"Our research on the ground has shown that after these incidents a total of 120 people have died in tunnel collapses," Samir Zaqout, Field Work Coordinator for the Al-Mezan Center for Human Rights in Gaza, told The Media Line. "Another seven were killed inside tunnels as a result of Israeli aerial attacks."

Of the 120 deaths, four were children and 59 were killed since the beginning of 2009. A further 250 people have been injured while working in the smuggling tunnels over the last few years.

"No one cares about what happens in the tunnels," Zaquot said. "The government here in Gaza just wants to make money off the tunnel owners and that's it. They take money from the people but do not provide any services to them. They don't care about the conditions for the workers, whether or not it's safe or the quality of the goods coming in from Egypt."

"Most of the people who work in tunnels are from very poor backgrounds and have been forced to undertake this kind of work to provide for their families under the difficult socio-economic conditions caused by the Israeli siege on Gaza," Al-Mezan said in a statement, accusing Israel's closure of the Gaza Strip of driving the tunnel industry. "As tunnels represent an inevitable alternative for society to attempt to deal with the impact of the Israeli siege, Al-Mezan expects the Government in Gaza to monitor and regulate this industry... The tunnels' catastrophe must end."

The government vehemently denies any responsibility for the deaths.

"We are trying to decrease the safety problems by talking with the people who are working in these tunnels and asking them not to use children and to take all safety precautions possible," Ihab A-Ghu'sein, a spokesperson for the Hamas government's Interior Ministry told The Media Line.

"The responsibility for these dead people is with those who have imposed the siege and occupation," he said. "For now, these tunnels help the people and this is their only way to mitigate this crises, but they don't have advanced techniques for tunnel building. When the siege is lifted there will be no need for these tunnels in the first place."

Al-Mezan's Zaquot said that beyond worker safety, the government should also monitor the quality of the goods being smuggled in from Egypt.

"The facts on the ground are that with the exception of gasoline, very little quality products are coming from Egypt," he claimed. "For example, all the biscuits are dry, discoloured and fall apart and the Coca Cola we get comes in metal tanks and has a very odd color. Basically all the materials coming in from Egypt are trash that the Egyptians don't want."

"The failure of the multinational forces in Lebanon to prevent Hizbullah from importing rockets to South Lebanon... [should be a lesson for Israel] that it would be a mistake to agree to an Israeli-Palestinian peace [agreement] that looks to multinational forces to maintain security."

"This survey raises questions about some policies that policymakers have been throwing into the air," said Dr. Aaron Lerner, cofounder of Independent Media Review and Analysis.

"Serious people, both on the Left and Right, are making policy recommendations about, for example, handing over security in Gaza or the West Bank to Egypt and Jordan," he said. "So it's important for us to actually think and talk about whether it makes sense to have Jordanian troops deployed in Kalkilya."

Asked whether the assertion that a complete withdrawal to the pre-1967 border would bring peace - the central plank of the Arab peace initiative - was "simplistic and naive" or "logical and correct," Israeli Jews responded 80% to 10% that this claim was simplistic and naive. This opinion was shared across much of the Israeli political spectrum, with a majority of Labor voters (60%) and overwhelming majorities of Kadima (85%), Likud (93%), haredi (80%) and right-wing (96%) party voters expressing this view.

A majority of Israeli Jews distrust Palestinian and general Arab willingness to make peace, and have a similar distrust for the efficacy of multinational forces as guarantors of a future agreement, according to a survey published this week.

The survey tried to gauge Israeli Jewish responses to a series of assertions expressing skepticism over issues that included the possibility for negotiations with the Palestinian Authority in light of its support for the report, and the effectiveness of international, Egyptian or Jordanian forces as guarantors of future agreements.

In their responses to these assertions, Israelis tended to agree - sometimes strongly - with the skepticism expressed.

The survey, commissioned by Independent Media Review and Analysis, was conducted last week by the respected Maagar Mohot polling company among 510 adult Jewish Israelis who constituted a representative sample of the Israeli Jewish demographic: 51% male to 49% female, 11% haredi, 18% new immigrant, with an average age of 42.

The survey dealt with general issues related to the peace process.

Asked whether the assertion that a complete withdrawal to the pre-1967 border would bring peace - the central plank of the Arab peace initiative - was "simplistic and naive" or "logical and correct," Israeli Jews responded 80% to 10% that this claim was simplistic and naive. This opinion was shared across much of the Israeli political spectrum, with a majority of Labor voters (60%) and overwhelming majorities of Kadima (85%), Likud (93%), haredi (80%) and right-wing (96%) party voters expressing this view.

The survey also brought to the fore what seems to be a deep Israeli distrust of multinational military forces as guarantors of a future peace agreement.

The poll asked respondents to comment on the following statement: "The failure of the multinational forces in Lebanon to prevent Hizbullah from importing rockets to South Lebanon... [should be a lesson for Israel] that it would be a mistake to agree to an Israeli-Palestinian peace [agreement] that looks to multinational forces to maintain security."

A significant majority (56% to 28%, with the rest undecided) agreed with this statement, expressing distrust of multinational forces.

Asked their opinion on the possibility of Jordan and Egypt assuming security responsibility in the West Bank and Gaza, which were previously controlled by these countries before 1967, respondents were divided. According to 38% of those polled, the "security risks" outweighed the "benefits" of such an arrangement, though 29% disagreed and fully 33% either didn't know or were undecided.

"This survey raises questions about some policies that policymakers have been throwing into the air," said Dr. Aaron Lerner, cofounder of Independent Media Review and Analysis.

"Serious people, both on the Left and Right, are making policy recommendations about, for example, handing over security in Gaza or the West Bank to Egypt and Jordan," he said. "So it's important for us to actually think and talk about whether it makes sense to have Jordanian troops deployed in Kalkilya."

Whatever the merits of the case, "nobody is talking about this," believes Lerner. Israel's policy debate is "shallow," and allows for "a whole slew of concepts [to be raised] that aren't getting any serious discussion."

The survey also gauged the effect of the Goldstone Report on public opinion, asking whether the Palestinians were "a real partner" to negotiations in light of the Palestinian Authority's efforts to bring international condemnation on Israel over the Goldstone Report. Fully 54% of Israeli Jews said they were not, while just 34% said the PA was a partner.

The skeptical majority included large majorities of Likud voters (70% expressed distrust), haredi voters (85%) and voters for right-wing parties (77%). Even voters for the center-left Kadima Party reported 50% to 25% that they distrusted Palestinian intentions in light of the PA's efforts. Only among Labor voters did trust slightly overtake distrust (40% to 37%).

The skepticism was highest among new immigrants, with 73% agreeing with the statement of distrust, versus just 13% disagreeing. By comparison, there was a much lower 45% agreement to 32% disagreement among native-born Israeli Jews and veteran immigrants.

Despite the majority who distrusted Palestinian intentions, there was no clear majority when it came to the assertion that "in light of the Palestinian efforts to [advance] the Goldstone Report... Israel does not need to negotiate" with the Palestinians.

The gap was slim - 39% said Israel did need to negotiate, while 37% said it did not - and seemed to reflect a distinction being made by many respondents between distrust of the PA and the need for negotiations. Fully 24% either did not know or could not decide on this question.

"Why, Mrs. Hillary? How much did the Zionists bribe you, and what weight does AIPAC carry in your decisions and inclinations? Have you asked yourself who is occupying whose land? Which side is plundering the land, murdering [its] inhabitants, sowing death, violence, and terror, and destroying human civilization in the region?

MEMRI Special Dispatch | No. 2628 | November 3, 2009PalestiniansPA Officials: Hillary Clinton is a Liar Bribed By the Zionists

Palestinian Authority officials have expressed disappointment with statements by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who called on them to resume negotiations immediately and without preconditions; they are calling her a liar and inexperienced, saying she has been bribed by the Zionists, and accusing her of being pro-Israel.

Following are excerpts from articles and statements on the issue:

Advisor to PM Fayyadh: "Clinton, Why Must You Lie?" "How Much Did The Zionists Bribe You?"In an article titled "Clinton, Why Must You Lie?" Omar Hilmi Al-Ghul, advisor to PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyadh and columnist for the PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, wrote: "U.S. Secretary of State [Hillary Clinton] and her administration's officials must answer many questions regarding a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. First of these is: Why is Mrs. Clinton lying to herself, to the American people, and to [other] world nations by twisting the truth and accusing the Palestinians of being an obstacle to a [peaceful] arrangement?!

"Why, Mrs. Hillary? How much did the Zionists bribe you, and what weight does AIPAC carry in your decisions and inclinations? Have you asked yourself who is occupying whose land? Which side is plundering the land, murdering [its] inhabitants, sowing death, violence, and terror, and destroying human civilization in the region?

"Mrs. Clinton, your lies can deceive only a few simpletons, who have been led astray - but the overwhelming majority of people can clearly see the truth. Despite all stratagems and coercive pressure [exerted by] your administration, the Palestinian leadership will remain an address for peace [in the Middle East] and for adherence to the settlement option; yet it will never submit itself to your or your administration's rationale of resuming negotiations while construction in the settlements continues."(1)

'Abbas: The U.S. Position is "Unreasonable"PA President Mahmoud 'Abbas stated: "[T]he U.S. has proposed no new [initiative] to move the Israeli-Palestinian peace process ahead; its position is unreasonable, since a six-month suspension of settlement construction is not the same as a complete freeze - which is a precondition for the peace process."(2)

PA Presidential Speaker Nabil Abu Rudeina accused the U.S. administration of "going back on its promises," and said that it is "unable to fulfill its commitments, and in particular the demand to freeze all settlement [construction] - which Obama set forth in his Cairo University address." Abu Rudeina went on to state: "Washington cannot compel Israel to freeze settlement [construction] because it is not pressuring it enough. If the U.S. administration cannot persuade Israel to freeze the settlements, how will it force it to withdraw from the West Bank and East Jerusalem?

"The Palestinian side still adheres to its former position that all [construction] activity in the settlements must be stopped before negotiations are resumed."(3)

Columnist: The U.S. "Gave a Powerful Push to the Escalation of Palestinian and Arab Extremism"In a column titled "Obama Should Fire Her" in the PA daily Al-Ayyam, Talal 'Awkal wrote: "Mrs. Clinton has poured oil on the fire. For her, it wasn't enough that the U.S. has been backing down more and more from its internationally [declared] position of championing a freeze on settlements, including natural growth - [no,] she [also had to] praise the position of [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu, [that is], opposition to a definitive freeze on settlements in Jerusalem and insistence on continuing the construction of 3,000 housing units in the West Bank.

"The U.S. administration has perpetrated a great deception, by backing down from the position that it itself declared and that had [subsequently] been internationally [accepted]. Thus, it strengthened the concerted efforts by Netanyahu and his government to destroy the peace process, and dealt a severe blow to all advocates of moderation, flexibility, and peace in the Palestinian arena. At the same time, it gave a powerful push to the escalation of Palestinian and Arab extremism.

"Mrs. Clinton has [always] been known as an Israeli sympathizer - as a presidential candidate and then as secretary of state. This time, however, she has showed her inexperience in political action.

"If the aim of her visit to the region was to support Senator George Mitchell, her statements at the press conference with Netanyahu undermined [Mitchell's] efforts, and may even lead to his resignation. That is what I would do if I were in his shoes."(4)

For assistance, please contact MEMRI at memri@memri.org.The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) is an independent, non-profit organization that translates and analyzes the media of the Middle East. Copies of articles and documents cited, as well as background information, are available on request.

MEMRI holds copyrights on all translations. Materials may only be used with proper attribution.

Israeli special forces on Wednesday took control of an Iranian vessel carrying arms intended for Hezbollah in a daring pre-dawn raid not far from Cyprus.

The ship was believed to have set out from Iran and later docked in Yemen and Sudan before sailing through the Suez Canal. Its final destination was believed to be either Syria or Lebanon.

The Antigua-flagged ship was discovered during routine patrols conducted by the Navy, according to a communiqué from the Israel Defense Forces Spokespersons Unit.

After soldiers boarded the freighter ship, they discovered a large cache of arms and ammunition which were concealed in order to appear to be of a commercial nature.

After the initial search on board the ship, the navy towed the freighter to Israel, where it conducted a thorough inspection of the cargo, the IDF said.

Intelligence agencies had surveilled the vessel for a number of days leading up to the raid. The decision to seize the ship was made following a recommendation by top IDF brass and was approved by the country's most senior echelon.

In addition, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak were kept abreast of preparations for the raid over the course of a few days.

"This is another success in the endless struggle against attempts to smuggle weapons and military equipment whose goal is to strengthen terrorist elements who threaten the security of Israel," the defense minister said. "I congratulate the IDF troops for the successful operation."

Following the raid, ministers in the diplomatic-security cabinet convened for a special session Wednesday morning, where they were given an intelligence and operational briefing on the details of the seizure.

Before the meeting, the ministers who were summoned were told that the discussion would focus on the latest developments related to the Palestinian Authority. The meeting though was devoted exclusively to the ship's capture.

From all indications, the operation was not brought for cabinet approval prior to its execution. Rather, it is likely that a small forum of a select number of ministers gave the go-ahead.

Foreign Ministry officials on Wednesday launched consultations to determine Israel's public relations stance in explaining the operation and its ramifications to diplomats and the foreign press.

Since the conclusion of Operation Cast Lead, last winter's three-week military offensive against the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip, the Navy and the Israel Air Force have conducted routine and extensive patrols and reconnaissance in the Mediterranean and Red Sea.

The military seeks to intercept ships bearing arms intended for Hamas and Hezbollah. As part of these efforts, the Navy has deployed warships through the Suez Canal.

In January 2002, IDF special forces stormed the Karine-A freighter which was carrying 50 tons of weapons loaded on board. The vessel was spotted and intercepted while sailing across the Red Sea.

Israel believes the weapons on the ship were meant to be delivered to Palestinian rejectionist groups in the Gaza Strip.

An exceptionally large quantity of weapons, rockets, and missiles was uncovered onboard a cargo vessel intercepted by the Israel Navy Special Forces and brought to the Ashdod port.

Dozens of shipping containers found on the ship were carrying numerous weapons and ordnance disguised as civilian cargo among hundreds of other containers onboard.

Israel Naval and Engineering Corps forces are currently unloading the containers and are sorting through the various types of weaponry found onboard.

As part of the Israel Navy's routine activity to maintain security and prevent arms smuggling, a force comprised of naval commandos, missile boats, and intelligence and explosive experts intercepted a cargo vessel bearing the name "Francop", which was flying an Antiguan flag.

The naval commando force boarded the vessel and conducted an initial search. The search was conducted in accordance with the usual search protocols as dictated by International Law.

Following the initial search and after it became clear that the vessel was carrying weapons, the vessel was directed by the Israel Navy to dock at an Israel Navy base in Ashdod in for additional searches and a detailed inspection of the hull's cargo.

It should be emphasized that the Captain of the ship agreed to the search. The Israel Navy conducted all activity without the need for force of any kind.

The weapons found onboard the ship originate from Iran, and were intended to reach the Hezbollah terror organization for use against the State of Israel and its citizens. The weapons uncovered at sea last night constitute a harsh violation of UN Security Council Resolutions 1747 and 1701 that strictly forbid Iran from exporting or trading any form of weapons.

This is a well-known Iranian technique, taking advantage of cargo ships flying different flags in order to smuggle containers loaded with large amounts of highly volatile weaponry to terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah.

The Iranians continue to act deceptively while blatantly ignoring and violating both International Law and UN Security Council decisions. They relentlessly act under the guise and flags of different countries in order to arm and encourage extremist factions that strive to destabilize the Middle East and other regions.

Last night's interception is part of continuous overt and covert IDF operations on various fronts, both near and far. Such operations are vital to maintain Israel's security, to prevent arms smuggling and to counter terror operations.

Following the necessary inspections of the boat, it is expected to be released.

The overnight operation was authorized by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defense of the State of Israel.

Commander of the Israel Navy, Maj. Gen. Eliezer Marom, commanded the operation from a forward command cell. The IDF Chief of the General Staff authorized the operation, after the confirmation of intelligence information gathered by the IDF.

Swedish journalist Donald Bostrom was given a cold greeting in Dimona, where he attended the city's annual International Conference on Communications on Monday.

Bostrom, who has been severely criticized for an article he wrote in the Swedish daily Aftonbladet alleging that Israeli soldiers had stolen body parts from dead Palestinians during Operation Cast Lead in Gaza, was greeted by a throng of protesters upon his entrance to the hall where the conference was held, and his keynote address was disrupted by catcalls from the audience.

During an interview with journalist and talk show host Yair Lapid, Bostrom defended his article, claiming everything he wrote was backed by evidence. He also said that he understood the anger Israelis felt towards him, but that he thought people had blown the article out of proportion. Bostrom told Lapid that he thought the allegations, passed on to him by Palestinian families, should be seriously investigated.

"If you had seen what I saw, you would have made the same claims I did. I promise you that the article contains no rumors or lies," said Bostrom.

Throughout the interview, Lapid challenged Bostrom on the article's veracity and pummeled him with hard-hitting questions, calling on him to provide the names of his sources or even a name of a single Palestinian whose organs were allegedly stolen. Bostrom refused to provide either.

When asked where he got the evidence to make such serious accusations against Israeli soldiers, Bostrom said the fact was that Palestinian families had made the claims, not that the claims themselves were true. Lapid in turn accused Bostrom of being led on by Hamas and becoming part of their propaganda campaign.

Lapid concluded the interview by thanking Bostrom for coming and expressing hope that next time he would be more careful when writing about Israel.

Bostrom has been facing angry Israelis since he first arrived in the country on Sunday morning, when he was met with protesters carrying signs calling for his expulsion and decrying him as an anti-Semite.

Due to fear that he would be harmed while in Israel, an armed bodyguard has been put in his service during his stay.

Bostrom isn't the only one to suffer from the public outcry raised by his visit. Dimona Mayor Meir Cohen was also booed during his opening address at the conference for his agreement to host the conference knowing Bostrom would be there.

Minister for Development of the Negev and the Galilee Silvan Shalom canceled his appearance at the Dimona conference to protest Bostrom's presence, which he called "a shameful event." He also withdrew his ministry's funding for Monday's conference.

The Simon Wiesenthal Center's director for international relations, Dr. Shimon Samuels, warned Cohen that "his prestige and that of the conference are being abused to whitewash unambiguous anti-Semitism and will be the opportunity for further repetition of the libel in the world's media, while turning its author into a hero."

"The sponsors of this travesty are confusing freedom of expression with blood libel. Bostrom should have no platform in Israel," said Samuels, who appealed to the Dimona municipality "to, at least, invite a noted authority on anti-Semitism in Scandinavia, Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld - Chair of the Jerusalem Center of Public Affairs - as respondent to Bostrom."

The Zionist organization Im Tirzu expressed harsh condemnation, saying: "We are certain that the conference organizers and the staff of the Dimona municipality do not identify with the Swedish anti-Semitic reporter's bizarre views, but the mayor's shameful insistence on holding the conference reveals an apparently lacking value system among the conference's organizers and attendees."

"The event organizers decided to sacrifice the values of morality, Zionism, democracy and the good name of Israeli soldiers on the altar of public relations and their own personal advancement, at a time when Israel is undergoing a severe anti-Semitic attack," read a press release published by the group.

In response, Mayor Cohen said, "Dimona is in favor of public debate and the right to argue."

The top 10 cleantech countries of 2009

October 9, 2009 by Shawn Lesser

5. Israel, the 'Silicon Valley' of water technology, is fast becoming the cleantech incubator to the world (see Israel to export $2.5B in water technologies by 2011). Israel recycles 75 percent of its wastewater, invented drip irrigation, and is home to the world's largest reverse osmosis desalination plant (see Israel plans largest desal plant in $513M deal). Israel certainly isn't the world's biggest cleantech market, but it might just be one of the world's most important centers of cleantech innovation and R&D, with innovative companies such as CellEra, Aqwise, and Emefcy. Better Place is also making Israel the first test-market for a nationwide electric vehicle recharge network (see Electric cars are coming to Israel). Leading Israeli VCs include Israel Cleantech, Aqua Argo Fund and Terra Ventures.

The Tel Aviv area could become the newest target for rockets launched from the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, Military Intelligence chief Maj.-Gen. Amos Yadlin said Tuesday morning during a briefing of the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee.

Yadlin said that the IDF had identified at least one test firing in which Hamas had successfully launched a rocket with a 60-kilometer range into the Mediterranean Sea.

He went on to say he is concerned that Hamas has smuggled in Fajr-style rockets, an Iranian-produced artillery rocket that was also used by Hizbullah during the Second Lebanon War. It was not clear whether he meant the Fajr 3, which has a maximum listed range of approximately 50 km or the Fajr 5, which can reach upwards of 70 kilometers.

The intelligence chief said that despite the increase in Hamas's capabilities, the recent summer was the quietest in dozens of years for four reasons: Israeli deterrence, aspirations regarding the Obama administration's diplomatic policy, the group's focus on force-building and because of internal struggles that have taken energy from the organizations. Hamas, he continued, does not want any conflict with Israel so that they can direct their energies toward strengthening their civil rule in Gaza, but is still continuing to smuggle weapons in through tunnels across Gaza's southern border with Egypt.

Hamas, Yadlin warned, is not the only of Israel's enemies to be strengthening. He said that Iran is funding, training and smuggling weapons to Syria, Hizbullah and Hamas, and that Iranian weapons are passing through Turkey and Syria - which he described as a "factory and storehouse" for weapons - to the Lebanese guerrilla group.

Hizbullah, he continued, is still storing weapons south of the Litani River in violation of UN Resolution 1701.

Yadlin also commented on the recent revelation made in September by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that Iran was building an additional nuclear enrichment facility in the Shi'a holy city of Qom.

That facility, Yadlin emphasized, is not intended for civilian purposes, and he added that the enrichment carried out at this newly-revealed second facility will aid Iran in shortening the amount of time that it will take to acquire the necessary amount of enriched uranium to produce nuclear weapons.

Also discussing Hamas on Tuesday, Minister-Without-Portfolio Bennie Begin said that the Islamist group was "in effect, an extension of Iran" and that Hizbullah was another such extension.

During an Army Radio interview on Tuesday, Begin said that when Israel disengaged from Gaza in 2005, "people assumed that the international community would not hold Israel accountable for what occurred there anymore." After the disengagement, he said, Hamas took over the Gaza Strip and began to fire rockets into Israeli territory.

Begin asserted that "although the cities of the South are no different from Tel Aviv," 60-kilometer missile ranges showed that Hamas was "continually striving" for greater military capabilities.

"As long as there is no comprehensive agreement concerning border crossings, the deterrence we achieved during Operation Cast Lead will grow weaker," he said.

During Operation Cast Lead last winter, Grad-type rockets, Kassam rockets, and mortar shells were fired into Israeli territory, with projectiles hitting Beersheba, some 40 kilometers from the Strip.

Though rocket fire from the Strip has decreased since the three-week offensive, weapons are continually smuggled through tunnels along the Philadelphi Corridor, on Gaza's southern border with Egypt.

PA historian and PLO official deny Israel's history in the Land of Israeland accuse Israel of "stealing" Palestinian symbols by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook

A Palestinian historian and a senior PLO official have denied that the Jewish nation has any historical connection to the Land of Israel, thus continuing the Palestinian Authority's ongoing historical revision.

In an interview on official PA television, historian Nabil Alqam first denied thousands of years of documented Jewish history in Israel, then replaced it with "4,000 to 5,000 years" of fictitious Palestinian history.

Israel has publicized many archeological finds in recent years, including coins with Hebrew writing and even stamps [bullas] with names of biblical figures. It is possible that Alqam was responding to these numerous finds when he went on to accuse Israel of creating "artificial Israeli symbols."

Nabil Alqam, PA historian:

"Why does the occupation [Israel] concern itself with stealing, [cultural] theft, distorting and erasing the Palestinian heritage? Because it [Israel] seeks a history [in the land] while [Palestinian] heritage is a history that proves our connection to the land... [The Palestinian heritage] has historical depth of 4,000 to 5,000 years. And here [Israel] attempts to steal these symbols to create fake Israeli symbols and identity." [PA TV (Fatah), Oct. 22, 2009]

Saleh Rafat, a member of the PLO Executive Committee, said earlier this month that Israel has even stolen "cuisine, clothing [and] architecture" that were Palestinian in origin and claimed they are part of Jewish history. He denies that the Jewish Temple ever existed, arguing that the tunnels near the Western Wall of the Temple ruins are merely the remains of old aqueducts:

Saleh Rafat, PLO official:"We revive this [Palestinian] heritage and cling to it in order to counter all of the attempts by Israel, by the Israeli occupation, to steal the national heritage and to falsify it with the claim that it is their heritage - from cuisine to clothing, and architecture. Every part of our heritage in our land, they claim is their heritage - even the tunnels they are trying to dig beneath the Al-Aqsa Mosque and under Jerusalem. Many of these tunnels are ancient tunnels that carried water to Jerusalem, and they [Israelis] claim that they are seeking an alleged Temple."[Al-Filistiniya (Fatah) TV, Oct. 15, 2009]

For more than a decade, the PA has been conducting a longstanding, systematic campaign to deny Israel's right to exist, first by claiming there was no Jewish history in the Land of Israel and then by fabricating a "Palestinian" history for Jewish sites, artifacts and archeological finds.

Since 1998, PA academics and religious leaders have claimed that Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims all populated the land of Israel in biblical times and even earlier. This year, the Supreme Islamic Council of the Palestinian Authority declared that Arabs have been living in the land of "Palestine" since 7500 BCE [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, March 17, 2009].

Placing Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims in Israel in biblical times is historically impossible:1. The name "Palestine" as a replacement for the Land of Judea/Israel was coined by Rome only in 136 C.E., and for nearly 2,000 years Jews were the only Palestinians the world recognized. 2. Islam was established only in 610 C.E. 3. Arabs first arrived in Israel with the Muslim invasion in 637 C.E.

If the allegations against Ya'acov "Jack" Teitel are true, then the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) has succeeded in apprehending one of the most dangerous Jewish terrorists in recent years.

One question - among many - that remains to be asked, though, is why it took so long - 12 years since the two murders he allegedly committed in 1997 - to arrest him.

According to security officials, the American-born Teitel, who likely learned how to use weaponry and explosives by spending time on military bases with his US Marine dentist father, was what is called in defense jargon a "lone attacker," the most difficult type of terrorist to apprehend.

Teitel was apparently aware of the need for secrecy and the inherent danger in sharing his exploits with family and friends. He supposedly wore gloves during all of his alleged activities, even when allegedly hanging up flyers supporting attacks against gays and lesbians.

What also made it difficult was that Teitel's alleged targets were of so many different kinds. He allegedly targeted homosexuals, left-wing Israelis, Jews for Jesus, Palestinians and policemen.

This wide variety made it difficult to piece all of the attacks together and for the Shin Bet to create an accurate profile of the type of suspect it was looking for.

Nevertheless, it is difficult to understand how the Shin Bet - which almost weekly catches wanted Palestinian terrorists in the West Bank - failed to arrest Teitel earlier.

This question is compounded by the fact that in 2000, Teitel returned to Israel after a three-year hiatus in Florida and was detained by the Shin Bet, which had obtained intelligence regarding his possible involvement in the 1997 murders.

While Teitel was questioned and the intelligence - according to his recent confessions - appears to have been reliable, the Shin Bet had no choice at the time but to release the new immigrant after failing to obtain substantial evidence to support the intelligence information.

If he was a suspect, though, why was Teitel then granted a gun license by the Interior Ministry? The police said Sunday that since he was never charged with anything, there was no legal basis for preventing him from obtaining a license. This seems a bit strange, though, considering some of the draconian steps authorities are now using, such as preventing Teitel from seeing a lawyer for some 20 days.

The arms cache that was discovered near Teitel's home and which contained nine different automatic weapons, sniper rifles and pistols was smuggled into Israel in a shipping container, officials said Sunday. Here, too, the Shin Bet could have been expected to inspect Teitel's container if it already had suspicions regarding his involvement in the 1997 murders.

The Shin Bet did not offer answers to these questions on Sunday and several times claimed that the investigation was ongoing. What is certain, though, is that the agency is conducting an investigation of its own to see where it might have gone wrong and how it can prevent the next Ya'acov Teitel.

The possible existence of additional Jewish terrorists is the working assumption in the Shin Bet, the Israel Police and the IDF.

Teitel was not the first and joins a long list that includes Baruch Goldstein, who gunned down 29 Muslim worshipers in Hebron's Cave of the Patriarchs in 1994, Eden Natan-Zada, who killed four Israeli Arabs in Shfaram ahead of the Gaza disengagement in 2005, and the Bat Ayin Underground, which was caught after planting a massive bomb next to an Arab girls school in east Jerusalem in 2002.

A senior Shin Bet official admitted Sunday that there were still many anti-Palestinian terror attacks in the West Bank, including murders, that took place over the past few years that have yet to be solved, meaning that there are likely more Jewish terrorists still at large.

The United States is bankrolling the Palestinian Authority and the Obama administration put itself way out on a limb to support Palestinian statehood and the peace process. So it is really not the wisest move, perhaps, for the Palestinians to accuse the US of killing peace prospects.

One good rule to observe regarding US politics is "don't get Hillary Clinton mad at you." Israel's foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman did it, and learned the rule. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu learned the rule too it seems. Now it is the turn of Mr. Abbas.

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Pointing an accusing finger at the United States, the Palestinians on Sunday said Washington's backing for Israeli refusal to halt Jewish settlement expansion had killed any hope of reviving peace negotiations soon.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, buoyed by new-found support from the Obama administration, urged the Palestinians to "get a grip" and drop their settlement freeze precondition for restarting talks suspended since December.

On a one-day Middle East visit on Saturday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton endorsed Israel's view that settlement expansion in the occupied West Bank should not be a bar to resuming negotiations -- contradicting the Palestinian position.

Netanyahu has proposed limiting building for now to some 3,000 settler homes already approved by Israel in the West Bank. He does not regard building in occupied East Jerusalem, annexed in defiance of international opposition, as settlement.

U.S. President Barack Obama himself, after persuading Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in September to meet Netanyahu in New York, called only for "restraint" in settlement, not the "freeze" he had previously proposed.

Stung by Obama's about-face and Clinton's remarks, the Palestinians voiced their frustration.

"The negotiations are in a state of paralysis, and the result of Israel's intransigence and America's back-pedaling is that there is no hope of negotiations on the horizon," Abbas spokesman Nabil Abu Rdainah said.

He said the Palestinians were calling for the Arab League to formulate a "unified Palestinian-Arab position" on the stalled peace process.

Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said it was a "critical moment" and insisted settlement must halt to revive peace moves.

"Pressuring Palestinians to make further concessions to accommodate Israeli intransigence is not the answer," he said.

Netanyahu told his cabinet that U.S. envoy George Mitchell would continue efforts on Sunday to revive negotiations.

"We hope very much that the Palestinians will get a grip and engage in the diplomatic process," Netanyahu said. "It is in the interests of Israel and the Palestinians."

DOMESTIC PRESSURE

Abbas faces intense domestic pressure from Hamas Islamists who control the Gaza Strip, and any compromise on settlements could hurt him politically in a run-up to Palestinian elections he has scheduled for January 24. Hamas has rejected holding a vote.

Some 500,000 Israelis live in the West Bank and East Jerusalem alongside 2.8 million Palestinians. Israel captured the territories in a 1967 war with its Arab neighbors. Palestinians say settlements could deny them a viable state.

Netanyahu's coalition, including pro-settler groups, does not believe Abbas is strong enough to deliver Israeli security in any deal. Some analysts see Netanyahu's cooperation with Obama's demand for a resumption of talks on establishing a Palestinian state as intended mainly to ensure U.S. support against Iran.

Palestinians warn that popular frustration with the failure to produce statehood deal could spill over into an upsurge in violence, even if few have appetite for a broad new uprising.

George Giacaman, a political analyst at Birzeit University in the West Bank said, "The Palestinian Authority is weak and has not been achieving any results.

"I believe we are at a dangerous stage. With no credible political process, this could create a political vacuum that might lead to violence."

Nadir Saeed, at the same institution, said Abbas had little option but to try and keep talking with Israel and the Americans, adding: "It is no better for him to come back to his public empty-handed.

"(Abbas) has built his career on the idea of negotiations. He cannot credibly back away."

(Additional reporting by Ali Sawafta and Erika Solomon in Ramallah and Tom Perry and Ori Lewis in Jerusalem; Editing by Alastair Macdonald)